It is a man’s job to sexually escalate with a woman he is attracted to. As women control access to sex, he risks rejection in his quest to get it. Indeed, if women are appropriately discerning in their choice of sexual partner, most men will be rejected most of the time. Even hard core players confess to a 90% failure rate. Their strategy is based on volume rather than quality of approaches.
Many women feel entitled to audition would-be lovers very selectively. If they experience a lack of attention – no guy shows up to audition – they blame men. If a guy does show up but decides not to stick around, he’s a douche. That’s not reasonable. You have no right to call a guy a jerk just because he doesn’t like you. Maybe you need to be more likable, or maybe you’re not compatible despite the initial chemistry.
The problem with this sense of entitlement is that it creates total passivity on the girl’s part. You don’t have very good control of your dating life if you are always waiting for a call or hoping the perfect guy is going to see you from across the room and say to his buddy, “See that girl in the red dress? I’m going to marry her.”
Usually this dilemma is addressed by encouraging women to make the first move or ask a guy out. In other words, we encourage the female to usurp the male role in hopes of nudging the process along. It seems only fair in the post-feminism era. This can certainly work, and in surveys a large majority of guys say they would love to be asked out by a woman. On the other hand, there are limitations to this approach, which runs counter to the natural order of things.
A much better approach is for the woman to do her job, which is to escalate emotionally. Women want emotional intimacy during sex, but they have sex before creating a foundation of emotional connection. Doing that work is your job, not his. If you hope for commitment, it makes no sense to leave it to chance, dreaming that a guy will fall for you based on your looks alone, or because you’re good in bed. A man will offer commitment when he is sufficiently emotionally invested to make the tradeoff to forfeit sexual variety. Women are the ones who have the power to create that investment.
How to Escalate Emotionally with a Man
1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him.
Evolutionary psychologist David Buss surveyed American men to ask them which traits they consider most important for long-term mating. Out of 67 named traits, the number one priority for men was sexual faithfulness. (This is why guys are judgmental about your number – it’s a proxy for predicted future behavior.) Reader Lokland shared a valuable personal insight:
In the intial dating phase (say 6 months) the guy will be subconsciously (potentially consciously) looking for reasons to rule you out as a girlfriend.
One of those disqualifiers would definitely be trying to garner attention from other males. Call them faithfulness tests which utilize a pass-fail system initially.
Biologists believe that jealousy evolved as a way for males to prevent being cuckolded by other men. Jealousy reduces the likelihood that a woman will cheat. However, men hate feeling jealousy. Many will end a relationship with a woman they’re crazy about if they feel jealous and insecure about her level of interest.
Too often, women rely on this tactic to enliven a man’s interest. At best, it’s a short-term solution. Good relationships are never made this way. Men at HUS have said repeatedly that they want a woman to be hard to get for everyone else and easy to get for them alone.
That means you need to go all in with exclusive interest before he does. He will only be exclusive with you after you have demonstrated that you are 100% exclusively focused on him.
2. Be consistently curious and interested to learn more about him.
Reader Hope shared some excellent ways that a woman can show genuine interest in one particular man.
- Ask him about the things he enjoys. Indicate that you’d like to try some with him.
- Show that you care about the big picture stuff, like his work or school, but take the time to check in on the day to day. How was work today? How did your interview go?
- Have his back emotionally. Demonstrate that you are loyal and on his side.
- Get to know as much as you can about his family and friends. Give him strokes for being good to his mom, or being close with his siblings. Express interest in meeting his friends.
You need to calibrate your level of interest to suit the progression of the relationship. Don’t get way ahead of him, just draw him out gradually from the start to make your interest in him as a person clear. As Hope said, there is a risk here:
The problem is, I think most women who do open up find that they are emotionally investing as well, which can lead to irrational decision-making/hamsterwheeling if the guy turns out to be a rotten egg. : /
This is where women risk rejection. You can minimize your risk by screening carefully for traits that indicate he is a good guy who is open to a relationship. As Hope pointed out in a comment, sociopaths don’t open up emotionally – if you’re showing clear signs of emotional investment and he’s holding you at arm’s length, drive on. Another warning sign is when his behavior is inconsistent. He’s warm and cuddly when the two of you are alone together, then you meet up in a group and he avoids eye contact. No bueno.
3. Ask for his advice, support or help.
One of the ways that women bond and establish new friendships is by revealing vulnerabilities to one another. When a woman shares a confidence or asks advice from another woman, she is signaling that she likes her, trusts her, and wants to increase the intimacy in the relationship. Often the other female will respond in kind. This works with men too.
It can be a problem you want to talk out, or a request that he help you put your IKEA furniture together. We all like to be needed, and we increase our emotional connection to others when we do kind things for them. He will probably like you more if you give him the opportunity to help you out.
4. Be generous and appreciative.
Men love to be appreciated for their efforts and for investing in a woman, including monetarily. Too often women take men for granted when it comes to paying, or doing them favors (see IKEA request above). Reader J shared some great suggestions:
I think a woman can and should do the following things if they are an honest representation of her feelings:
1. Say thank you. (Sounds like nothing, but it’s actually huge.)
2. Say she enjoys being with the guy, is having a good time with him.
3. Give honest compliments.
4. Reciprocate the cost of dates with small favors, gifts of food, handmade items, etc. (Bake a cake, knit a sweater.)
5. Give presents for occasions like birthdays and anniversaries (the latter only if it is not too cloying or desperate looking.)
6. Be physically affectionate in non-sexual ways (hold hands, place head on shoulders or chest, etc)
7. Small acts of consideration. Ever see Chaz Palmentieri’s A Bronx Tale? The young narrator is told by a mobster that the test of whether or not a woman is a keeper is if she leans over to unlock the driver’s side door after the guy lets her in on the passenger side.IME, that’s the sort of thing that attracts guys who are looking for a wife or LTR.
5. Share a lust for life.
Hope again:
One thing that really gets guys going is a girl who is positive, full of life, and laughs a lot. A pretty girl smiling a genuinely happy smile as she looks into his eyes for a long time — that makes a man melt. I’ve never had a guy compliment me on my frown, but I have been told that my face lights up when I smile. A positive girl makes people around her feel more energized, which is very attractive. No needy, clingy, bitter, depressed or unhappy vibes.
6. Let him know how much you like him, and how sexually attracted you are to him.
Again, this is where the risk of rejection happens for women. That’s OK, because it’s your job in the mating dance. This is where you lead. Go out on a limb. Say what you need to say. This is the one that sealed the deal for me with my husband, by the way.
Reader Anacaona shared a great example of this. She had a strategy for meeting a man, and when she found one she liked, she made it very clear. Even though he was in another country, she made it easy for him to want to commit to her.
I was honest about how things were progressing for me. I sent the first message online, and in February when we had accumulated several hours online I sent him a Valentine. I think that made my husband feel more confident to pursue me further, especially because in the USA men are expected to give Valentines while it is more or less optional for women.
Also, I have high emotional intelligence so I discovered his likings and remembered them and asked him a lot about them. I also asked him about his old girlfriends. This is a good technique to connect with a man’s emotions because for most men, women in his past occupy a special place so sharing these important emotional milestones with him makes you special to him.
I never asked him for presents, except when he came to visit me the first time I told him that I wanted something he made himself and that I can carry with me at all times. He made me a silver ring that ended up becoming my engagement band. Once we decided he would come and visit, I asked to share expenses 50/50 because I knew it was a big expense for him.
As I mentioned earlier, he is going to escalate sexually. He is probably going to try for sex before your relationship is as emotionally intimate as you would like. This is the inevitable struggle between males and females. Again, you have a job to do. If you are nurturing the relationship emotionally, and feel that you are not yet ready to have sex, you should say so.
BUT. You should also tell him that the throbbing between your legs is about to drive you insane, and that you look forward to keeping him up all night. Also, as we’ve discussed here many times, he is not going to want to wait if other guys haven’t. If you are not a girl who does casual, make that clear, so that he knows there’s no price discrimination.
Although it’s obvious, it bears mentioning that there are ways to please him sexually as you become secure in his affection. Be very clear about how desirable you find him, and for heaven’s sake bow down and worship his cock. He will reward you emotionally.
By the way, a lot of what’s described in this post is what men call femininity.
Each sex has a job to do in finding the balance between sex and commitment. Embrace your role and your responsibility from the start. Nurture the emotional connection from the moment you meet someone. It’s never too early.
{ 970 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 4 5 6 7 »
Susan,
“Interesting about whites and OOW births. I wonder how the increasing practice of cohabitation comes into play here. Does anyone in VT get married? Are we counting 35 yo cohabiting women in LTRs as unwed mothers? If so, the numbers relevant for our purposes are probably even lower.”
It’s not to Scandanavian levels yet, but the in the circles in which I’m now running (thx to you and Roissy), there are a lot of pretty damn good women who are in marriages in all but name with some pretty good men, even if they are still (mis)called “boy”friends. Some of these women still vaguely have trading-up on the brain – they’ve sent me some IOI’s – but once I’ve gotten to know the guys I’ve put the kibosh on it and they seemed almost relieved. Others have flirted around some but judged my game insufficiently tight. Few are unattached altogether.
Less capable women often find the end of the serial monogamy game to be less appealing.
“This idea that serial monogamy is a necessary fact of life to “Learn yourself” and “relationship skills” just strikes me as bullshit.”
Your grandmother and all women before her are irrefutable proof that it is bullshit and propaganda used by slut advocates to get men to come around. How is that laughable strategy working out for those self-serving agenda-driven assholes?
“Learn yourself” is right up there with dumb-ass created exploring embracing and expressing your sexuality: all lies that somehow only applies to women.
Marriage is (among other things) about managing the different timing of SMP peaks. By the time a woman hits 30, that piece is beside the point, hence the casualness about making the relationships they’re in “official”.
Abbot,
“Your grandmother and all women before her are irrefutable proof that it is bullshit and propaganda”
My grandmothers got their serial monogamy experience out of the way in high school. For various reasons, that’s happening later now, if it happens at all, and those who miss out on those experiences altogether are poorer for it. Some adjustment to those realities would be prudent.
“It is almost impossible to look past it if everyone looks at your girl and SEES her as a sperm dump and you as a chump for being with her.”
Women are learning and thus the new “modern woman” -
http://anarchymo.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sexstrike.jpg
.
On the whole “men do not accommodate” or accept certain female behaviors -
According to Amanda Marcotte, feminists “created a generation or two where the number of women who feel empowered way outstrips the number of men who are truly ready to relinquish privilege. That’s why the dating market is hard.” Meaning its hard now for women. Then the solution is to stop the feminist brainwashing.
Marcotte goes on to spew: “there’s a tendency not to talk publicly about the disparity that many women are experiencing between their entirely reasonable expectations of an egalitarian relationship and what’s actually available. There’s a fear that if we tell women about this problem, they’ll reject feminism…” And of course “egalitarian” includes paying no mind to her slutty past.
But there are people telling women that truth [by golly, right here on HUS] and they do they get attacked for this important public service…by, you got it, feminists! And if the added benefit is the rejection of feminism by women, then all the more important [and fun] this work really is.
This is not a bad idea but if a girl is not taught to avoid becoming a slut as part of this course, few if any men will pedestalize her enough to take on any of those roles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9330117/School-for-husbands-girls-should-be-taught-how-to-find-supportive-man.html
.
@Desiderius
You do definitely have a point here. It’s not a wasted venture… but at the same time, I’d say that if a current relationship is not obviously headed for marriage, I’d rather opt out of it and keep my options open for one that could. That was my outlook at 18, and continues to be my outlook at 25.
BTW, completely OT….
@Desiderius
did you mention in the past at some pint you were in Cincinnati? Sassy too?
I have family there and actually lived there a number of years. If that’s the case, email me at jimmyhendricks87 [at] gmail [dot] com.
I’m obviously not living there anymore…. but I’m interested to see how the old city is going from the front lines. Still my favorite city to live in to this day.
Are we counting 35 yo cohabiting women in LTRs as unwed mothers?
Apparently, that is endemic in Sweden. They have interesting laws with respect to Alimony and Child Support, and so, it seems, that many simply choose to live together without marriage.
===============================
Even he says he let the relationship go on for twice as long after he knew their futures didn’t match. How is that fine?
So Coop, if some guy, in the back of his head, gets the idea that they are probably not going to get married, he must break up with her?
Or, even if he thought that it would end at some point, he must break up with her then? It’s not like he hated her.
“This idea that serial monogamy is a necessary fact of life to “Learn yourself” and “relationship skills” just strikes me as bullshit.”
If young people are going to have sex either way, then my preference and I truly believe the least harmful way to accomplish that is through serial monogamy. It will reduce the chances of disease, provide a safer outlet for sexual energy, and provide a bit of practice for later in life. I’m not clinging to abstinence as a solution when there are easily 10 to 15 years between onset of puberty and marriage. It just won’t happen, so to me the idea is find a way to contain and direct that desire and energy into something more productive. Of course those folks that want to play the field think it is a bad idea, because it limits their options. But as I’ve said many times, what is good for all isn’t always good for the individual, and at some point a choice has to be made: do we promote the common good, or individual freedom? I mostly lean toward individual freedom, until I hit issues of morality (and of course morality varies quite a lot person to person) But that IS the issue, we no longer share a common set of moral and ethical beliefs, and our society is suffering because of it.
Jimmy,
I don’t necessarily think that it favors the girl. If we are going by stats presented on here, you’re average guy ‘playing the field’ would be pretty darn happy with getting lucky 5 or 6 times over his four years of college, with maybe one or two of those turning into a FWB type situation. So yes, while that might be more ‘fun’ and does provide more variety, there will be substantial lengths of time where the guy is involuntarily celibate.
In that case, a college gf seems to work out pretty well for a guy.
… if some guy, in the back of his head, gets the idea that they are probably not going to get married, he must break up with her?
Or, even if he thought that it would end at some point, he must break up with her then? It’s not like he hated her.
PVW here:
I would think so, and this is seeing it from a marriage-minded woman’s perspective, (ie., I used girl game early in my dating relationship with Mr. PVW to snap him up, I was not messing around), and especially since Escoffier said he would not want such a relationship for his own daughter. If a you wouldn’t want your own daughter treated like that in the future, don’t treat someone else’s daughter like that today.
No marriage-minded woman has time to wait on some man who knows he is not interested in being with her long term. A year and a half in, all was well, then not on his side. In that year and a half, she could have dated someone who might have wanted what she wanted.
She didn’t seem to be the type that dated much, ie., based on what was described in her high school history and that she might not have dated anyone for a few years after she broke up with Escoffier.
Yes, it is true, she could have opened her mouth and said something, but she probably thought that if she just continued to “audition well enough” to become the wife, she would be rewarded. That is what happens to a lot of women, they go along to get along, until it is how many years later, and nothing happens.
I had a young relative I had to call out on that, she was doing what I have come to think of as “having a relationship by hopeful fantasy.” She had a boyfriend in graduate school; they broke up. She moved to the big city upon graduation and hooked into her old crowd, him included. She continued to go out with other men on occasion, but was hopeful that it seemed things were getting better with him. She wasted a good bit of time just “hanging out,” until I said to her, that if he is not giving her what she needs now, it is time to head out the door. She finally got the message and ended things.
The irony is that when she was in the “sweet spot” of 24, there were young marriage-minded men whom she went out with once or twice, but she thought they were too serious about being marriage-minded and she felt she was just not ready. Of course, those men have been snapped up since then. On occasion, she gets the Christmas cards of them and their families.
What is she up to now? Last I saw she is still trying to date in the big city, except she is now 33. And in the ensuing years, she became marriage-minded; the guys, when they were on the same wavelength in being compatible, were not marriage-minded at all.
I am definitely with the camp that he should have broken up with her.
“Women are going to learn to avoid sex with men who do not know and care for her or face relationship-breaking awkward social situations in the future”
I hope. I truly just do NOT understand why any woman would find ONS and casual encounters to be in the least bit fulfilling. For that matter, I don’t get what men see in it. Yes, I know having an orgasm feels good. So what? Smoking opium feels good too, but our society doesn’t promote that behavior. One could argue that sex is less dangerous than drugs, but STDs seem to be a pretty high risk to me.
Since the time I lost my virginity, I have always kept in mind that even if I’m not with the same woman in 20 years, I don’t ever want her to feel like I devalued myself by having casual sex. I don’t ever want to explain to her that I had sex with a woman I didn’t give a shit about, and that didn’t care about me. Because I very much believe that who you associate with is a reflection on yourself and your personality. Having sex (which in my opinion is THE MOST intimate thing two people can physically share) with someone I don’t know or care about is exposing my intimacy to a stranger. What does that say about how I value my intimacy? This is why every single sexual partner I’ve had as been within a LTR. did those all work out? Nope. But I genuinely cared and loved each of those women the entire time I was with them.
Another way I look at it is this. When I am in a relationship with a woman, I “own” her sexuality. No, I’m not saying she is my property. I’m saying that while we are together, I have sole access to her sexual intimacy and I am the sole recipient of it. (I am very clear about this so there are no errors of ignorance) Of course she “owns” mine the same way. But, what I’m offering is something I have carefully kept in good shape and “low mileage” so to speak. (not in terms of actual sexual encounters per se, but low N) I’ve always actively thought about keeping the “value” of my intimacy high, because I don’t want to offer the women I love something that has been abused and used for pleasure alone. This is where I get the idea of unequal trade from. If I’ve “saved” myself for people I love, and my mate spent years on the carousel, we aren’t even offering the same thing. I’m sure that many women that have gone the casual route are still very much able to bond with a man and enjoy the deeper level of connection they have in bed, but that doesn’t change the fact that by going casual, she lowered the “value” of sharing it at all. I think to many, sex isn’t something you “offer” in a relationship, it is simply something you do for fun AND if done within a relationship it feels better. To me, sex is the one thing you ONLY share with the person you love. What else is there that can be exclusively your mates? I love my friends and family. I share my heart and soul with them. I tell them secrets. I confide in them. There is nothing else I can think of that I ONLY share with my mate, and at its roots THAT is why I place so much importance on exclusivity. Sexual intimacy is what makes my LTRs “relationships” instead of friendships. If I were to share sex with friends and strangers, then there would be nothing left ONLY for my mate. I believe most people seem to believe that love is the difference. I don’t see that at all, unless you don’t love anyone else.
PVW, everything you said was perfectly reasonable, but with a focus on what would be best for her.
Of course, our horse in this race is Escoffier. What would have been best for him? And, as always, I ask this question with all normal parameters in mind (i.e. he is not some sociopath, he is not going to lie to her face about important things, he has the normal male desires, etc.)
I don’t think Escoffier really did anything wrong, but I don’t think the girlfriend did either. Maybe there are a few things that they could have/should have done, but overall I think they both had good intentions. From what I’ve seen, situations like this happen fairly often
That being said, I’d love to hear opinions about how to avoid being caught in a similar situation. At some point, should the woman initiate a straightforward “marriage talk”? If so, when should it happen? Or should she be more subtle? Or is this just one of those inevitable risks that you take when you enter into a relationship?
I’d love to hear people’s thoughts.
At some point, should the woman initiate a straightforward “marriage talk”?
I have already addressed what I think she should have done, and that is to be much more open about her desire to get married (to Escoffier).
Or should she be more subtle?
Again, you can read my previous comments, but, in today’s market, subtle is not a great strategy for young single women.
Ramble:
Of course, our horse in this race is Escoffier. What would have been best for him? And, as always, I ask this question with all normal parameters in mind (i.e. he is not some sociopath, he is not going to lie to her face about important things, he has the normal male desires, etc.)
My reply:
Absolutely, our horse in the race is him. What would have been best for him?
From the time he realized where his head was, perhaps he could have found a woman who was on a similar wavelength, who was not marriage-minded?
Yes, it is true, he was comfortable, it was fun, it was good while it lasted, he was definitely getting his needs met, he was not lying, he had good intentions, he wasn’t a sociopath, but the key point is he knew it was not equally good for both of them in a very important way, and as an ethical matter, that doesn’t work well. It created some serious inequities that he knew about but did not disclose.
What would have been best for him? Break up with her, perhaps? It is an ethical question for him now even though it is all behind him, because all these years later, 20 years in, this is on his mind, so it says this is really bothering him, especially since he has a daughter who might face this in the future?
He wasn’t against marriage in general. He had simply come to the realization, on some level, that he would not be marrying her.
So, with that in mind, does he dump her and pursue some other girl with school work to accomplish and knowing that he will be moving thousands of miles away in a number of months?
…it was fun…
He was serious about her. But, ultimately, it was not going to end in marriage.
@Cooper
Well, this was 20 years ago, so it’s probably not valid to apply today’s standards. However, I think that any female student at UC -Berkeley who assumes her college bf wants to marry her is hamsterbating. Of all the kids I’ve known and known of at my kids’ colleges, there is not a single college couple that has married. A few are still together but basically on the ropes, because they don’t live in the same city, are working 100 hours a week, or find themselves not wanting to marry so young.
As I mentioned recently I do know one couple who married last summer at 27, after 9 nine years of dating. (They met at Freshman Orientation.)
The average age at marriage for college graduates is 28 and 30. If a 21 year old woman hopes her 21 yo bf is going to marry her, she needs to realize she’s in the long tail, far from the mean, and she needs to clarify explicitly.
@Jimmy
Doesn’t that apply only to the top 20% of males? You’re describing guys with a plethora of options.
“Of course, our horse in this race is Escoffier.”
Not in this thread.
Not really on this blog.
Well, we’re heading for a norm where people have their first serious relationship in their mid-20s and then marry, after years of hooking up or perhaps celibacy. No practice compromising, negotiating, resolving conflict, empathizing, showing vulnerability, nurturing intimacy. So there will be grooms who are marrying their first girlfriend but 20th sexual partner, and the same goes for brides. I don’t have a good feeling about that.
The answer, of course, is to marry early. Not gonna happen, because few men or women want to.
Emily:
That being said, I’d love to hear opinions about how to avoid being caught in a similar situation. At some point, should the woman initiate a straightforward “marriage talk”? If so, when should it happen? Or should she be more subtle? Or is this just one of those inevitable risks that you take when you enter into a relationship?
My reply:
The practice for any kind of talk in a dating relationship, IMO, doesn’t begin with the “marriage talk,” but a woman should get used to thinking about “where things are going” from long before, to make sure the guy she is with knows what she is about, ie., before they get exclusive and start sleeping together. What this means is that she has to be thinking long term before she even goes in to dating him seriously.
Otherwise, she is having sex with someone who has not made it clear just what he is interested in, which is the big problem with the hook-up culture today, young women going into things with their “eyes wide shut.” They have sex first and then wonder whether the relationship and exclusivity will follow.
In my case, the husband was similar to Ted D, he was not going to be dating me unless he was interested in long term. So I knew what was in the back of his mind from the beginning.
So how would I do it otherwise? Not aggressively, but in a casual way, ie., after a year of dating exclusively, in a quiet moment, private, a simple invitation to open up the conversation, along the lines of “where do you see us going?”
One of my male cousins told me that is how the conversation got going with his wife. She opened up; he knew he had to make a decision. They were compatible in many ways, wanted the same things, were not sleeping together (both conservative Christian), but she needed to know she was not wasting her time on a man who would not marry her.
Not really on this blog.
Desi, you are right, of course. In general, HUS is focused much more on girls. But, in this instance, I think that we are going to be concerned about 20 year old Escoffier and his interests and desires.
PVW,
“where do you see us going?”
And if he replied, “What do you mean? Be specific.”
I’ll remind you that I took Escoff’s side on this. I hope people trust me to be fair and consistent. I tend to be harder on women here than several of the men.
Jimmy,
“I’m obviously not living there anymore…. but I’m interested to see how the old city is going from the front lines. Still my favorite city to live in to this day.”
Things are hopping downtown. In the process of moving there.
Ramble:
Not really on this blog.
Desi, you are right, of course. In general, HUS is focused much more on girls. But, in this instance, I think that we are going to be concerned about 20 year old Escoffier and his interests and desires.
Ramble:
He wasn’t against marriage in general. He had simply come to the realization, on some level, that he would not be marrying her.
So, with that in mind, does he dump her and pursue some other girl with school work to accomplish and knowing that he will be moving thousands of miles away in a number of months?
…it was fun…
He was serious about her. But, ultimately, it was not going to end in marriage.
Me:
…and coming from an old school perspective, where my older female relatives made it perfectly clear that I was not to let men “use me for sex,” and that wasn’t just about casual sex (god forbit); being used for sex included having sex with men who would sleep with me knowing that they would not marry me. Because being “serious” in old school language means marriage.
Susan,
“The average age at marriage for college graduates is 28 and 30.”
They were in a radically different economy at 20-25.
@SW
Your pessimism is a drag : (
But not as much as Tracy McMillan’s new book. What a bonehead. Average women shouldn’t take advice from celebrities.
What’s your bottom-line solution? You didn’t exactly marry early, and everything worked out fine. I didn’t marry early either, but I also didn’t have a long succession of serially monogamous relationships. I’m not so sure the age a couple marries, as long as it’s post-college, necessarily determines whether the marriage will work or not. And most college graduates don’t go to graduate school, so they avoid that questionable delay in settling down.
Maybe there’s research out there on what works for 20-something married couples. The glass is more than half full. My guess is focusing only on serious relationships with highly compatible peers after age 22 allows a lot of young people to avoid racking up failed relationships or belt notches.
Ramble,
PVW,
“where do you see us going?”
And if he replied, “What do you mean? Be specific.”
My reply:
I meant that as a part of the conversation, we’ve been dating for a while, where do you see us going, getting married is important to me…however way she phrases it…
But she shouldn’t be opening this type of conversation unless she sees that things are going well and that he is serious minded. Is she part of his life, ie., part of the major events in his personal and public life? Is he acting as though they have some sort of future but has not clearly articulated it? And if he says, I don’t know, her response should to be, is this something we should think about and get back to soon? If he is not willing to talk about it and begin planning for the long term, or if he obviously says no, it is time to move on. No need to give him an ultimatum, no one wants that. Otherwise, if he is not being definite and concrete, she is just left hanging, waiting, hoping, auditioning.
I’ll remind you that I took Escoff’s side on this.
Susan, I wasn’t hating.
While I understood (I think) what Desi was saying, I wanted to clarify why I was focusing on Escoffier and not the girl.
PVW, you are still focusing on what would be best for the girl, and, for the record, I agree.
However, I will ask again, what would have been best for Escoffier knowing that he was not going to “dog her out” or lie to her face.
He remained in a committed relationship until school was over and moved across the country.
So, again, in this instance, what would have been best for him?
Escoffier is clearly more attractive than he gives himself credit for here on HUS, being able to have a summer fling with a hot sorority girl, land a Grace Kelly look-alike, and have a girl still be bitter about being dumped by him years later. Then he beat out all the competition to marry the best girl in his grad school program. I mean come on!
I don’t think 20-year-old Escoffier was exactly suffering from a dearth of females.
As a point of comparson, at 20 my husband was playing World of Warcraft and not getting any females whatsoever, and he didn’t have a girlfriend until he was 25, when he met me. Then again, if I had met my husband when he was 20, I would have still fallen for him big time. He just didn’t have the mass appeal to more mainstream girls.
“I’ll remind you that I took Escoff’s side on this. I hope people trust me to be fair and consistent. I tend to be harder on women here than several of the men.”
Focusing on whether Escoffier was right or wrong misses the point on a couple levels. The question (that he himself raised) was whether the strategy the girl and her family pursued was an effective one for her.
Yes, I am on board with this.
Going along with some of the comments here…I have a former colleague who developed statistical demographic trend-extrapolation models for the World Bank before turning to swashbuckling activities on the hedge fund side.
I remember her telling me that there were some interesting tipping points in the data: if the average age of marriage (for women) hits around 29-30, overall marriage rates are predicted to really plummet (as would birth rates, obviously). Divorce rates in this population would appear to remain stable (stochastic fluctuations around a long-term mean), but this becomes tricky because you would theoretically want to now include some % of failed, serious LTRs as divorces (as LTRs had become popular marriage proxies in this environment and were filling the same intended social functions).
There was another point at which co-habitation rates would also plummet, but I can’t remember the details on that one.
“Escoffier is clearly more attractive than he gives himself credit for”
This was an effective strategy for men in our SMP.
It became overdone in the one that followed.
Ramble, when you ask what would have been best for Escoffier, surely you are not suggesting that a guy getting along in a boring relationship with a girl he doesn’t really love for some sex is a good thing? Likewise if a girl is in a relationship by name with a guy, but only using him as an emotional dumping ground and ATM, not really giving him much sex, while he is in love with her and wants to marry her, that would be problematic, regardless if she does or doesn’t intend on marrying him.
Yes from the perspective of the person with the upper hand, what’s best is keep things in status quo, but I didn’t think you were the type to always side with the powerful.
The question (that he himself raised) was whether the strategy the girl and her family pursued was an effective one for her.
Which is a fine question to ask.
Another fine question is: “What would have been best for him?”
Personally, I am interested in both questions.
Ramble:
PVW, you are still focusing on what would be best for the girl, and, for the record, I agree.
However, I will ask again, what would have been best for Escoffier knowing that he was not going to “dog her out” or lie to her face.
He remained in a committed relationship until school was over and moved across the country.
So, again, in this instance, what would have been best for him?
My reply:
I suppose this is where my “female lens” finds it difficult to see the “male lens.”
So from his point of view, having a girlfriend and companion (with regular sex) is important, he would not want to break up with her and find someone new. Staying with her, his needs are met until he graduates.
From my female lens point of view and having known men who were faced with a similar conundrum, they preferred to be celibate than behave unethically in their dating life, ie., sleeping with a woman with whom they knew they had no future.
They made difficult decisions, broke up, moved out, took time off from dating if they needed to, went back into the mind field and dated again, taking their time to find the right woman where everything fit together perfectly. They then dated the right women and locked them down fairly early.
Hope, it seems that more than a few here are intent on changing history.
He did love her, but, their interests started to diverge. He recognized this.
So, again, let’s lay this out:
1. 20-22 year old guy loves girl
2. Realizes on some level that he is not going to marry her (again, pretty young guy)
3. Is soon going to finish school and move across country.
4. If he dumps her, he will either be alone for another 18 months as he completes school, or, pursues other girls as he also does his school work (and, that girl would have a pretty good chance of also being dumped before he leaves for the East Coast)
So, what does this man do? What is in his best (non-sociopathic) interest?
Desiderius, yes, the girl’s strategy seems to be problematic, if we’re going to go there. She had gotten burned by men before, supposedly gotten pumped and dumped prior to meeting Escoffier, and so she may not be the most discerning when it comes to reading intentions. Maybe she also lets the tingle dictate her decisions and just goes with the flow of emotions, not stopping to think about how they might affect her future.
This makes her a bit naive and foolish, not calculating, and unable to see the part she herself played in causing her issues, so she directs that anger and blame outward onto the men whom she believes have wronged her. But to have a sufficient level of insight, self-awareness and consciousness about responsibility, she would need more rationality, logic and cognitive ability than she apparently possessed (or else Escoffier would not have found her to be a bit of a bimbo).
Most likely she ended up with someone on a similar level of intelligence as herself, who would not take advantage of her, hence observers say he has lower SMV.
To dovetail into what you said about women who are not receptive to red pill ideas, it takes a certain level of introspection and desire to make rational sense of the world to appreciate the red pill — as well as the emotional maturity to take responsibility for one’s own actions, own up to one’s flaws, and take proactive steps to correct course. Most people simply aren’t going to go for it.
Which is fine.
I want to pick a nit here. They *DO* have a future. It’s just that that future does not include marriage. I understand that this is a semantic issue, but I think it is an important one. It is also why I advise that girls lean towards being more direct than leaning towards being subtle.
Also, it is interesting that you find his actions to have been unethical. I can’t cosign that.
@Megaman
That’s exactly the bottom line solution. And that’s the advice I give the women I know: once you’ve graduated from college, it’s time to go on real dates with men you would consider marrying. No unemployed guitarists. No former players. Marriage material only. And I’m quick to say that if a woman meets someone she would marry at age 22, for heaven’s sake don’t let him go because you are young. You could marry at 24 or 25 after dating for a while.
I do believe that dating/LTRs are a useful way of testing the long-term viability of a relationship. As others have mentioned, it’s useful to observe your SO in various crises and to test your compatibility over time. You need to get past the limerence stage before you really know if the relationship will go the distance. We have very high expectations of marriage today, so spending time as boyfriend and girlfriend before committing to marriage is extremely useful. When marriage was an economic and political transaction, relationship quality was not the primary focus, and people did not have the option of divorce. In this age of “soulmate” marriage, compatibility is critical. Paying more attention to it would lower the divorce rate significantly.
@Bastiat
You’ve identified the most important factor – birth rates. I believe the U.S. is currently at 2.09. We can’t afford to go any lower, unless we want to adopt a radically different immigration policy.
As marriage becomes the purview of older, educated Americans, more and more children will be born OOW. My head hurts just thinking about the implications of that – none of them good.
Heh, I can confirm that. He’s handsome, tall and slender – a darker version of my DH. I don’t know why he’s always downplaying his attractiveness. My guess is that as he came into his looks in college, he was already convinced girls didn’t go for him. He regards all of his successes as flukes. For the record, these guys make great catches because they don’t know their own SMV. Let’s hope for Mrs. Escoffier’s sake he doesn’t figure it out and go wild.
Ramble, I’m deliberately not being hard on Escoffier, because I have been in the same situation myself and chose to stay for years longer. From a practical perspective, staying together was the “best” option, considering mixed bills, finances, shared social groups, regular but boring sex, etc. However, from an emotional perspective, it makes the party dumped feel much more resentful, and makes the party doing the dumping feel more conflicted.
How can we properly measure or quantify emotions, weigh them against other possiblities and the idea of “time lost” in one’s 20s? I’ve come to believe that being single is not as bad as being in a bad relationship, even if the “badness” of the relationship is some vague feeling of “this isn’t the right person.” At least when single there is always the possibility of meeting the right one. I met my husband basically a few months after escaping from that LTR.
In my case there was an added factor of guilt from the guy who threatened to kill himself if I left, which presumably Escoffier didn’t have to deal with. Emotional manipulation changes the scenario a bit, but regardless, was he truly glad and content to be with the girl, or did he feel ever so slightly “trapped” in that relationship until he would move away? I know my own answer. Trapped.
I enjoyed the article and will pass it on to guys and gals I know. The guys to have a criteria to judge gals behavior to see if the gal is relationship material. The gals to have a criteria to judge guys behavior before having sex with him aka he’s focusing 100% of his attraction on her, consistently curious and interested to learn more about her, asking for her advice, generous and appreciate, sharing a lust for life, and letting her know how much he likes her.
Off note: I agree that a gal doesn’t have a right to call a jerk because he doesn’t like her. I’m don’t see why a gal if she wants to call him one should refrain when it’s heavily encouraged and defended to call gals stuck up self-entitled princesses with over inflated egos when she doesn’t like him. Then claim it’s blaming the guy for bad female behavior to say maybe he needs to be more likable or they’re incompatible.
Hope, whether or not you were being hard on him, you did change the story and I wanted to make sure that we were on the same page.
Ramble, changing the story how? I’m not saying what Escoffier did was awful, but having been in a situation somewhat like his, I had to own up to my part of the responsibility in it. I should have ejected years earlier. I didn’t. It wasn’t even the first time! I had two different guys threaten suicide on me if I left. Anyway, the first guy left me instead, so I didn’t have to make that decision.
Another sort-of similarity: I also moved halfway across the country to get away after the relationship. Sometimes that distance is just nice.
My god, could you imagine if our population dropped to ONLY 250 million?
Or, even, 200 million. I don’t even want to think about it.
What would the once overcrowded schools and emergency rooms do?
Fortunately, our political masters are hell bent on making sure that efficient, sustainable federal programs like Social Security and Medicaid never, ever “fail”.
And, even if the average American thinks that we should cool down immigration, well, hell, who the fuck cares about what the average American wants. I want my 2 Buck Chuck, and I want it now!
Ramble, I re-read where you said I changed the story, and maybe you’re referring to where I said he didn’t love her. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in this situation, but I basically get the feeling that Escoffier was no longer in love with his girlfriend after some time. I experienced the same thing, and was speaking from that perspective. I may have “loved” the guy in a caring way, but it wasn’t the kind of love that made for a good romantic relationship. I would say that “love” is basically not love. Certainly if a guy “loved” me in that way, I’d want to know, and I’d want to not be in that relationship for the long haul.
Hope, see the quotes text in 793.
He was not, as far as I can tell, using her for sex. That is unfair.
Just because he realized that she was not going to be Mrs. Escoffier, does not mean that he did not love her.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been in this situation, but I basically get the feeling that Escoffier was no longer in love with his girlfriend after some time.
He realized that she was not as interested in the things that were really interesting him. And I am sure there were other factors.
So, did he feel the same about her as he once did? No.
But, lets avoid the word “love” since this will then, likely, devolve into the real, REAL definition of that word.
He very, very likely still cared for her and likely enjoyed her company (if less, since she was not going through the same great books eye-opening that he was).
But you painted her as the victim, which she was not. She dumped, sure, but this relationship did not victimize her. She did not get “used” (we all get “used” in relationships, but you know what I mean).
Ramble, I used the word “use” because you brought up the idea of what was “best for Escoffier,” which you insinuated was continuing to get sex, not necessarily keeping the relationship because he really loved her and wanted to be with her (even taking marriage out of the equation). Now only he can really know why he stayed, and his reasons are his own. But my primary objection to your statement of “staying for the sex” was the “use” scenario.
For what it’s worth, I tried to leave the ex and told him I wasn’t in love with him, and he threatened to kill himself and basically guilted me into staying. So he did know I didn’t really love him in the way that I wanted to stay for the long haul (regardless of marriage). The reason for me staying was personal weakness. I don’t know why Escoffier stayed. Maybe he didn’t want to hurt her feelings then. It probably wasn’t about what was “best for him.” Again, that was the wording I did not like, which seemed to imply “use,” pure selfishness and objectification.
Also, if everyone did what was “best for me,” without any consideration for any other person, things would quickly degenerate. So I don’t think it is a stretch to question looking at a situation from the perspective of “what’s best for one person” alone. All involved parties should have their interests be considered.
I wasn’t trying to play sides. Escoffier and the girl both had their part to play. My initial conclusion was that both were a bit young, foolish, and not very self-aware, thus neither intentionally did a horrible wrong. I was not solely looking at it from the girl’s perspective. Escoffier’s intentions, an important thing in ethical discussions, were not malevolent.
If, on the other hand, decisions were based solely on “what’s best for me,” while knowing it would cause injury to another person, that would be unethical. This is again why I questioned the concept of solely focusing on “what’s best for Escoffier?” Since “what’s best for the girl” and “what’s best for him” are in conflict, there’s a problem to be solved, and the solution is not to solely focus on what’s best for one or the other, but take both parties into consideration. Am I off on this aspect of ethical judgement?
Susan,
“For the record, these guys make great catches because they don’t know their own SMV.”
That was before you and your generation of women raised all your sons to be like that. You flooded the market with us.
Susan,
“You’ve identified the most important factor – birth rates. I believe the U.S. is currently at 2.09. We can’t afford to go any lower, unless we want to adopt a radically different immigration policy.
As marriage becomes the purview of older, educated Americans, more and more children will be born OOW. My head hurts just thinking about the implications of that – none of them good.”
My guess is that the people who brought us the culture that produced this state of affairs are currently figuring this out. They are likely to be much more receptive to your ideas in the future than they were in the past, if for no other reason than to fund their medicare.
Hope,
“But to have a sufficient level of insight, self-awareness and consciousness about responsibility, she would need more rationality, logic and cognitive ability than she apparently possessed (or else Escoffier would not have found her to be a bit of a bimbo).”
That, or parents/grown-ups setting norms that would better serve her interests.
And she wasn’t a bimbo, she was just a normal young woman with a lot to offer.
“My guess is that the people who brought us the culture that produced this state of affairs are currently figuring this out. They are likely to be much more receptive to your ideas in the future than they were in the past, if for no other reason than to fund their medicare.”
Holy shit! You know, I never saw this angle. Perhaps there is some hope for legal changes in favor of men IF it is required to keep the birth rate up. My fear though is that there are enough OOW births going on to pick up the slack in the poorer communities, and these are EXACTLY the kinds of people that vote for government “support programs” thus increasing the control the Fed has over themselves and the rest of us.
Or in short, the smarter/richer/independent people are NOT reproducing in large numbers while the poorer/less educated/needy people are gearing up to breed like rabbits. And just like many young women, the government does NOT generally have a long-term view of the future. I think most of them don’t look any further along than their last term, which makes term limit ideas a double-edged sword. This is also my issue with immigration. As the “system” is setup now, those folks will gladly take a free green card and vote for public assistance programs because they are in the position to use them.
Susan,
“Well, we’re heading for a norm where people have their first serious relationship in their mid-20s and then marry, after years of hooking up or perhaps celibacy. No practice compromising, negotiating, resolving conflict, empathizing, showing vulnerability, nurturing intimacy. So there will be grooms who are marrying their first girlfriend but 20th sexual partner, and the same goes for brides. I don’t have a good feeling about that.”
You’re not the only one.
“The answer, of course, is to marry early. Not gonna happen, because few men or women want to.”
Minds are changing, but that’s only one piece, and maybe the last one to fall into place. A good first step would be eliminating the hookup prerequisite for “getting to know you” dates. It’s just lunch.
The female piece there would be getting rid of the DLV inherent in the invite.
On another note, at least we are not in 1833 Massachusetts!
Wightman v. Coates:
An action lies for a breach of a promise of marriage. In such action, evidence of an express promise is not required; but it may be inferred from circumstances usually accompanying such a relation between the parties.
…on a promise to marry the plaintiff, and a breach thereof by refusal, and having married another woman.
It was objected by the defendant that, there being no direct evidence of an express promise, the action could not be maintained.
We can conceive of no more suitable ground of application to the tribunals of justice for compensation, than that of a violated promise to enter into a contract, on the faithful performance of which the interest of all civilized countries so essentially depends. When two parties, of suitable age to contract, agree to pledge their faith to each other, and thus withdraw themselves from that intercourse with society which might probably lead to a similar connection with another,–the affections being so far interested as to render a subsequent engagement not probable or desirable,–and one of the parties wantonly and capriciously refuses to execute the contract which is thus commenced, the injury may be serious, and circumstances may often justify a claim of pecuniary indemnification.
When the female is the injured party, there is generally more reason for a resort to the laws than when the man is the sufferer. Both have a right of action, but the jury will discriminate and apportion the damages according to the injury sustained. A deserted female, whose prospects in life may be materially affected by the treachery of the man to whom she has plighted her vows, will always receive from a jury the attention which her situation requires; and it is not disreputable for one, who may have to mourn for years over lost prospects and broken vows, to seek such compensation as the laws can give her. It is also for the public interest, that conduct tending to consign a virtuous woman to celibacy, should meet with that [*4] punishment which may prevent it from becoming common. That delicacy of the sex which, happily, in this country gives the man so much advantage over the woman, in the intercourse which leads to matrimonial engagements, requires for its protection and continuance the aid of the laws. When it shall be abused by the injustice of those who would take advantage of it, moral justice, as well as public policy, dictates the propriety of a legal indemnity.
This is not a new doctrine. As early as the time of Lord Holt, it was enforced, as the common law, by that wise and learned judge and his brethren, that a breach of promise of marriage was a meritourious cause of action; [FN omitted] and although the value of a marriage in money might have had some influence in that decision, there is no doubt that the loss sustained in other respects–the wounded spirit, the unmerited disgrace, and the probable solitude, which would be the consequences of desertion after a long courtship–were considered to be as legitimate claims for pecuniary compensation as the loss of reputation by slander, or the wounded pride in slight assaults and batteries.
Nor is this English law become obsolete. It is the common law of our country, always recognized when occasions have offered; and the occasions have not been unfrequent since the adoption of our constitution.[FN omitted] In the case of Paul vs. Frazier,[FN omitted] Chief Justice Parsons says, “As the law now stands, damages are recoverable for a breach of promise of marriage.” Several actions of this nature have been before this Court since I have been upon the bench; and I remember several, when I was in practice at the bar, in which I was counsel. Indeed, there is no country, in which the relative situation of the sexes, and their joint influence on society, would render such a principle of jurisprudence more useful or necessary.
The [*5] objection implies that there was indirect evidence from which such a promise may have been inferred; and the jury were instructed that if, from the letter written by the defendant, as well as his conduct, they believed that a mutual engagement subsisted between the parties, they ought to find for the plaintiff. They made the inference, and without doubt it was justly drawn.
Is it, then, necessary that an express promise in direct terms should be proved?
A mutual engagement must be proved, to support this action; but it may be proved by those circumstances which usually accompany such a connection. On the contrary, it is very clear, from all the English cases, that a promise may be inferred, and that direct proof is not necessary. In the case before referred to, of Hutton vs. Mansell, Lord Holt says expressly, that, where one has promised, and the behavior of the other is such as to countenance the belief that an engagement has taken place, this is evidence enough of a promise on the part of the person so conducting; and the same principle will apply to both the parties.
In the present case, however, the evidence on which the jury relied was of a decisive nature; for the letters of the defendant, which were submitted to them, were couched in terms which [*6] admit only of the alternative, that he was bound in honor and conscience to marry the plaintiff, or that he was prosecuting a deeply-laid scheme of fraud and deception, with a view to seduction. The jury believed the former; and in so doing have vindicated his character from the greater stain; and he ought to be content with the damages which they thought it reasonable to assess for the lighter injury.[FN omitted]
Ted,
“these are EXACTLY the kinds of people that vote for government “support programs” thus increasing the control the Fed has over themselves and the rest of us.”
That’s one piece, but they don’t get to vote for the people running the universities or creating the media. That’s where the change will come on the culture side. The Fed fuels the Babe Drain to the universities/big cities, but what they learn there is very much in play.
@Ramble
“Just because he realized that she was not going to be Mrs. Escoffier, does not mean that he did not love her.”
Is there really that many shades of Love?
2-month-Love, 2-year-love, or forever-love?
When someone says they love you, should you really have to wonder how long they meant by it?
To me, your either ‘in it’ or not. And once he said seeing his future was without her, then, in a sense, he was realizing that he no longer loved her.
Sure, there are plenty of reason why someone might keep a relationship going – one being not wanting to find someone else to have sex with (when school is close to over) – but they really aren’t good reasons, and most of them indicate that the person just simply isn’t in
love anymore.
Your post (#793) did make it sound like your suggesting it’s OK to “use” someone your no longer in love with based on not wanting to 1. Find someone else in short amount of time 2. risk spend time without sex.
IMO, once one starts planning their future without the other then your not in love. Sure, you may ‘care’ for the person still, and not wish any sorrow for them, but your not with them with long-term intensions anymore.
“But I did start doing more things without her and planning a future in which I gave her basically no consideration.” – Escoffier
I’m getting the sense tha everyone here that is saying he did nothing wrong believe that a relationship is short-term unless specifically specified otherwise. Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Shouldn’t a relationship, between two people that are in love, be assumed to be long-term unless specified otherwise?
I don’t know, this is just the way I feel. I’d hate to find out that someone who claims to “love me” hasn’t had intensions of being with me for no more than the near future – even worse would be that person claiming that they “still do love me” even though they determined that it was going to last long ago without letting me now.
“But I did start doing more things without her and planning a future in which I gave her basically no consideration.
Ramble:
Also, it is interesting that you find his actions to have been unethical. I can’t cosign that.
My reply:
I realize that is the case! For me, it is unethical in that he knew she in all likelihood presumed they had a marital future, but instead of doing the honorable thing, he chose to let her wallow in her self-deception while the adults around her, in keeping with the more modern day trend of “hands off,” didn’t say or ask anything.
Sure, her needs were being met in the short term, as in having a boyfriend, and his were definitely being met. But it seems her relationship with him left her sad and jaded, perhaps even more so than the pump and dumps she experienced before him.
The healthier attitude for her would have been to say, “it was a learning experience, we were not a good match”, but I would not be surprised if her attitude upon the break up left her wondering why she never seemed to be good enough, but was always being dumped.
But of course, as I mentioned earlier, she had a role in this to verify what was going on…She didn’t look out for her interests, but that doesn’t mean it is okay to take advantage of her naivete!
Cooper – +1
It bothers me to NO END that the default for any “relationship” in the modern Western world is: it’s temporary unless specified otherwise. I’ve always worked from the other end: any relationship I start is forever unless I specify otherwise, which I don’t. That doesn’t mean I’m ready to get married on the first date. But it does mean that once the relationship gets physical (that is actual sex) it is for the long haul until it isn’t. And as soon as I get the idea that it isn’t going to work out long term, I would end it. But then again, I don’t get into relationships for just sex, or companionship, or any one or two “benefits”.
Oops! Not to say that Escoffier took advantage of her naivete, I’m not presuming he was a sociopath, but letting the inertia take hold can lead to that perception.
I am getting lost. I don’t remember stating “staying for the sex”. But, that’s alright. I don’t think it is a major point.
Again, I made sure to say “non-sociopathic”. It is absolutely possible to pursue your desires and interests without being extreme about it.
See above.
I only focused on his desires after we had focused on hers. I understand that he asked the question about what was best for her, and we pursued that. I also wanted to focus on his desires as well.
You are not off at all. But, like I said before, we had no problem pursuing the idea of what is best for her. So, I wanted to flip that coin and see the other side as well.
Like I said to Hope, this is going to devolve into what the really true, bestest, best most-perfect definition of Love. It will never happen. So, with that said, I will opt out of any debate on that subject.
Well, I was more asking the question then answering it, but, in general, I have no problem with how Escoffier acted.
Ramble, I think Cooper stated some of the counterpoints I would have made better than me. But I can see why you would want to consider Escoffier’s position.
The issue is, his intentions matter a great deal, and by flipping the scenario to ask “what is best for him?” you have changed the nature of the scenario to one in which his intentions are now about “what’s best for me” rather than his originally statements, which were a lot less clearly defined.
Lest there is any confusion, it is that semantic conversion which appeared unethical. So it WOULD be unethical IF he was operating under the phrasing of “what’s best.” Basically, your hypothetical question made it a “use” scenario. Even though you said “non-sociopathic,” anybody can be not a sociopath and still do unethical things.
No, again, I can’t cosign this.
There is a big difference between wanting, or hoping, for marriage and presuming it.
And, without knowing all of the finer details, had she presumed marriage from a 20-21 year old guy in 1990 (or, whatever), then, I would really need to question her hamsterbating.
Again, you are really focused on her feeling and what she wanted and what would be right for her.
And that is fine.
But it keeps tilting the conversation, especially since our conversation started with me asking you, “What would be best for him“.
And, again, that’s fine. We all have our prerogatives.
First of all, I don’t think I am that handsome. I am tall (always been that), well dressed (this has improved with my income) and fit. Though I have not always been fit I have always been skinny. Today I am actually in good shape because of deliberate action, which is a first for me, though I have been reasonably dedicated to exercise for several years now after a long period of sloth. Finally, being the most attractive guy in a graduate program is like being the tallest midget.
As for all these hot chicks I have snagged, keep in mind it’s not that many and I’m only telling you the good stories. I have left out most of the ones in which I look like an idiot and/or cry. The sorority girl was a total fluke, to this day I have no idea what she saw in me. It’s the only time I snagged a girl quite like that, though I have been asked to serve as escorts to fancy parties a number of times, once I was escort to a “Miss Chicago”, no joke. However I never even got a kiss out of most of those, I was just there as necessary male ballast. The Grace Kelly look-alike was a bookish intellectual who happened to be hot–I guess in today’s terms she would be considered a hipster. We had a lot in common but then a great deal not in common.
I am not asking anyone to take sides for me or against me. As I have said, many years after the fact I developed some unease about what I did but at the time I had no problem with it and no cultural cues were telling me there was any problem. It was all part of life and considered perfectly above board. As I have also noted, even her parents apparently to this day have no problem with me.
I told the story to illustrate the limits of the LTR/college marriage strategy for women. And also to show how the culture totally failed my GF. She was, at least subconciously, looking for a husband. Nobody told her how to get one or how to screen for one. Her whole world was fine with our relationship and did not urge her to clarify anything with me or (crucially) to “save herself” or “wait.” Of course it was too late for the former. But she could have made me wait not merely longer but until she knew that my long term intentions matched hers. (It never occured to me in those days to get mad at a girl for not sleeping with me right way just because she gave in fast to someone else.) She had, as I have said, maintained celebacy for quite a while before we met (unless she was lying to me about that, which I have a few reasons to doubt).
So, this was a girl who got things about half right in HUS terms. She did some dumb things early on but very few and learned from them and corrected course. She did not drink heavily. She was not a party girl. She screened out cads and players. She waited for exclusivity and “committment.” She was not hypergamous, or at least she found me good enough. She was not a flirt, not always looking for the next guy, she never made me jealous, never cheated (that I know of and I don’t believe she did), was not pining for alpha, and was not doing any of the bad things the guys here complain about.
The problem was, she didn’t correct enough. She got burned again but in a different way. She wanted a husband but apparently could not articulate that even to herself and there was no one in the culture, her family or anywhere else telling her how to get one and how not to get one.
Like I have said, I started reading and posting here to figure out what to tell my own daughter when the time comes. And one of the things I am going to tell her is, don’t do what my college GF did.
@dahlingdarling
Neither sex is justified in getting pissy just because someone rejects them. I agree with you – a guy has no right to hate on women because a girl tells him she just wants to be friends. The standard should be the same for both sexes.
I can’t say that I phrased things perfectly, so let me be really clear about what I was thinking about.
In my head, I was asking 2 questions:
1. What would have been best for her (in a non-extreme, non-sociopathic, reasonable, modern way)?
2. What would have been best for him (in a non-extreme, non-sociopathic, reasonable, modern way)?
That’s it.
@Ramble
Once you fall below replacement level, you have to start importing labor. We’ve seen what that looks like in Europe, it’s a mess in most (though not all) countries.
Ted – I’m with ya.
I would not enter, or remain, in a relationship if I felt staying together with hopes of lasting for forever was a shared interest.
Whatever reasons someone would staying in a relationship otherwise would, to me, be “using.”
I have no interest in fulfilling someone’s short-term emotion needs, or sexual for that matter.
Fair point. In that case, we’re back to my usual exhortation: “Snap these guys up!”
Ramble:
But it keeps tilting the conversation, especially since our conversation started with me asking you, “What would be best for him“.
My reply:
In light of your perspective, what Escoffier did was right for him at the time.
He got what he wanted, but if you see Escoffier’s comments at 824, getting what he wanted then bothers him today. All I’m suggesting is that the alternative view I posed, that of my “female lens” or the lens of the men I knew who would have broken up then dated someone else or pursued celibacy under those types of circumstances, might have led Escoffier to take a different approach at 20 in light of what he knows and feels 20+ years later (hindsight is 20-20). Who knows what that might have looked like. But it would have been different enough, though, that today he is willing to advise his daughter accordingly.
@PVW
Massachusetts has a rather checkered history when it comes to marriage and family law…
“Once you fall below replacement level, you have to start importing ”
Same for wife material
Once you fall below replacement level, you have to start importing labor.
So, then, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, all of these places will need to keep growing till they reach max capacity and then they will never be able to see their population reduce?
Why?
What terrible evil will befall America (or, preferably, some country that that did not have it’s largest gov’t institutions operate on Pyramid Schemes) if the population, temporarily, reduced to, say, 250 million?
My final clarification: As I read the story (as told from his perspective), Escoffier did not intend to deceive, hurt or string along this girl. He behaved according to the information he had at the time. Nobody said anything about marriage; her parents and cultural indicators were not bringing up marriage. As he said, he didn’t even realize or think about his deeper feelings until after she brought up moving to be with him. The crux of the matter is mutual ignorance/muddling, helped along by the culture that does not try to bring young couples together toward lifelong commitment.
As for such LTRs not being good for women and potentially leaving them jaded and bitter, that is always a risk. You can’t keep your heart safe if you want love. For example, my stillbirth wasn’t “good” for me. It was what it was, and part of life and growing is learning how to deal with really painful, crappy situations involving heartbreak and loss. I wish it never happened, but the fact that it did won’t cause me to hate life or the universe forever. I’m risking heartbreak again by having another baby. But it is worth the risk.
By the way, like Escoffier, my husband has no idea how handsome he is either, which is a good thing for me. He thinks he’s overweight and dorky, but he is a very tall and sexy man. Not just my own opinion either.
No. Many years afterward he has some unease about it. And this is in light of all the things we talk about at HUS.
And, whether or not he feels an unease about something would have almost no effect on my question. LBJ, apparently, had no problem falling back asleep after hearing about how many American boys were being killed in Viet Nam. He may not have felt bad about it, but it was still wrong.
Again, just because he may advise his daughter to avoid a situation, does not mean that it was wrong or unethical.
Again, I will repeat my thinking on this, so that we are clear:
1. What would have been best for her (in a non-extreme, non-sociopathic, reasonable, modern way)?
2. What would have been best for him (in a non-extreme, non-sociopathic, reasonable, modern way)?
I completely agree with this.
Susan,
“Fair point. In that case, we’re back to my usual exhortation: ‘Snap these guys up!’”
Your generation was only into that because your fathers knew their SMV all too well. May be the next generation before that is once again the case. Until then, playing/being dumb will have limited (but occasionally spectacular!) appeal. Take it from a pro.
So, then, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, all of these places will need to keep growing till they reach max capacity and then they will never be able to see their population reduce? ,
Do you know that this remain people are aging people right? Having a reduced population comprised in the majority by older people with all that it entails (diseases, lack of productivity) is destructive to any nation? Unless you plan to have some sort of euthanasia laws upon retirement you need younger people at replacement levels at the very least for the countries to not fall into madness.
@Megaman
@Susan
I definitely don’t disagree with anything either of you have written here… but why limit looking for marriage to after 22? For a girl, her prime years are already starting to tick away at that point.
Why waste years 18-21?
This is why there are no easy answers. 18-21 is pretty young. I got together with my college GF when she was 19. She was very stable and “together.” That was not all that common for 19 y/o girls even then. I gather it is even less common today. Seems unrealistic to expect too many to take the husband hunt seriously at that age.
But of course “unrealistic” compared to what? A lot of the “realistic” alternatives are simply terrible.
Expecting girls to “wait” en masse also seems unrealistic. I’m not disputing that. Though of course society has managed to set this expectaion before and have it (mostly) met. But again, just because something is unrealistic doesn’t mean it’s the wrong answer.
Then you have the early marriage/early divorce–late marriage/less divorce issue.
I don’t know how to solve any of these problems.
Jimmy H. – “I definitely don’t disagree with anything either of you have written here… but why limit looking for marriage to after 22? For a girl, her prime years are already starting to tick away at that point.
Why waste years 18-21?”
Precisely. Do they know what they want/need for a husband? Nope. But the best way to find out is to audition some men for that role, which means at least a few LTR/serial monogamy type situations prior to getting married. Or, perhaps the very first guy they pair up with manages to be ‘the one’. Either way, it keeps N low and helps to gain relationship skills. To me, all hooking up does is teach people how to have crappy sex, and how to seduce people into having crappy sex. (I define crappy as sex without emotional component. As Ana like to say, YMMV)
And I have yet to see anyone point out how a relationship is too time consuming during college. It really doesn’t take any more time than partying every weekend to a drunken stupor and banging some stranger. Of course putting effort into a relationship might not be as “fun”, depending on how you get your kicks I guess.
So, Ana, a bunch of older people who knew all along that they were not having children are suddenly living in a slightly lopsided place where there are a significant percentage of senior citizens is going to reduce to chaos?
Because you absolutely must go to college. Absolutely Must! Without that piece of paper that says you sat through 400 hours worth of Sociology classes, you will have nothing to offer society.
And, either way, even if you think that she does not NEED to go to college, the college experience has obviously evolved into one where teenagers become much more mature.
@Ted D
In my new post, economist Betsey Stevenson agrees with you. She suggests that dating has value in and of itself and that there is evidence that what people want in a marriage partner changes a lot over time. Since we mature later today than ever before, I think that is exacerbated. 150 years ago 18 year olds were fully matured adults. Today, they’re dependents relying heavily on their parents. As maturation gets pushed back, so will marriage.
>> “Why waste years 18-21?”
Because nobody wants to marry them. Their male peers aren’t interested in marriage, and it’s not socially acceptable for older guys to get involved with somebody that young. (Although I suspect that this varies a lot with geography/social class etc.)
@Ramble
The U.S. is not a slightly lopsided place. The Boomers will bring great financial hardship to the rest of you. We have done a poor job of saving for retirement and racked up debt. You all are going to pay for our Medicaid funded nursing home care.
You all are going to pay for our Medicaid funded nursing home care.
Yup, that is what *some* are hoping for.
Emily – “Because nobody wants to marry them. Their male peers aren’t interested in marriage, and it’s not socially acceptable for older guys to get involved with somebody that young. (Although I suspect that this varies a lot with geography/social class etc.)”
But I’m not suggesting 18yo women should be getting married. What I am suggesting though is that 18yo women should be dating guys long term that they think would make a good husband now, even if they don’t know for sure exactly what a good husband will be. If they stay together through college and don’t find themselves going separate ways, maybe then start seriously start talking about marriage. But, just because you aren’t ready to get married right now, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be looking for and/or being with the guy you want to marry later.
I don’t even understand why this is confusing for some people. Do people think that at some point in their life they will wake up and just KNOW they are ready to get married AND exactly what type of person they want to be with?
First of all, I disagree completely that guys 18-21 aren’t interested in marriage. They might not be interested in getting married during that time period, but from my experience most would be very interested in finding a girl to date exclusively who they would presumably marry down the road if everything went according to plan.
With that said, I’m not recommending that people need to get married at 18-21. I’m saying Susan’s advice to exclusively date and look for people who are clear marriage material works just as well at 18-21 as it does 22+. If you’re just killing time at 18-21, you’re just wasting opportunities while the clock ticks.
@Ted
I agree completely.
I’ve actually always felt that way myself, but until recently all my peers thought it was very weird.
@Jimmy
I agree 100%. It makes sense to apply the same filters at 18 that you would at 28. IOW, don’t date the stoned slacker at all. It’s a very bad idea for women to think in terms of “having fun now,” because the experiences a woman has while young will impact her future choices, behaviors, and emotional state. It’s not popular to say so, but I believe this is true for men as well.
I agree… men have the advantage of having a lot more time on their side, but if the end goal is to get married, you’re only hurting yourself not deliberately working for it.
And again, I think it’s probably a bad idea to get married in that 18-21 timeframe, but working toward that goal during that time is another thing altogether.
SW
Maybe it’s called being modest? It’s extremely difficult to rate oneself accurately, I can certainly relate to that. My guess would be guys that underrate themselves to some degree tend to be on Team R anyway.
Only incentives drive behavior, huh? Some men are long-term-oriented, some are short-term-oriented, and some can go either way. Though it’s by no means 1/3 for each group. You’re beginning to see the light : )
Escoffier,
“Then you have the early marriage/early divorce–late marriage/less divorce issue.”
If the never marrieds are included in the latter number, as they should be, this statistic loses its force. It’s also predicated on the strong economy those late marriers enjoyed while they were getting established that those delaying now will not be able to rely on.
Early marriage is a high risk/high reward strategy for women, but there is risk involved in waiting as well, and the rewards are much more speculative.
If doctors are marrying doctors, that’s a hell of a lot less male doctors for the nurses to marry, and you best believe the ones that are around don’t have their eyes on the 30-year-olds. Given the much stiffer competition, the male doctors who do make it will likely be those who benefited from the support of a strong early marriage.
My other sister (teacher, now SAHM) started dating her doctor husband at 20 and married him at 24, supported him through med school, and now they have a great family at 40.
Susan,
“Since we mature later today than ever before”
I know a lot of people in the rising generation who are more mature now than most
Boomers will ever be.
Don’t let the lousy SMP fool you – that isn’t their fault.
I was rating myself not by how I think I look but by the market reponse to me over the years. Women were not devoid of interest but few were throwing themselves at me either. A lot of the stories I read here posted by guys who claim basically to be betas have never, ever happened to me nor anything like them. Also, I was never a player or anything close and would have made a truly terrible one had I tried.
For a while I roomed with a football player, a gigantic defensive end. At the time I was learning Don Giovanni and was playing it all the time. He could not have cared less about opera but he asked me what it was about and I said “Some dude who screwed 1,800 women” (“Madamina, il catalogo è questo”). That got him interested.
So he took me to this party where there were a lot of athletes and hot chicks and he said, “Let’s have some fun.” And he went around whispering to girls “See that guy? He’s like a regular Don Juan, he’s nailed girl on campus except you” and then he would point to me. One of them sized me up and gave me this dismissive look and said “Not even close” or something like that. In case you’re interested, I was single at the time and, no, I did not get laid that night.
Megaman,
“Maybe it’s called being modest?”
Modesty with a twinkle in your eye.
D,
I married a bit later than that but my wife was a huge help to my career. In a way, our marriage was similar to one out of college because we didn’t get married until I was out of grad school and started to work for real as opposed to living like a bohemian. The same as someone getting a true career building job at 22 and getting married then, I just started later. But she was there for it and it paid of handsomely for both of us, I think.
If both guy and girl are working full time in jobs with some promise at 22, I don’t see why they have to wait to get married until 27-30. Unless of course they just want to “have fun” for a while.
That or, if it’s really true that early marriages are more likely doomed.
oops, got the number wrong, it’s 2,065:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madamina,_il_catalogo_%C3%A8_questo
@Ted D
“I don’t even understand why this is confusing for some people. Do people think that at some point in their life they will wake up and just KNOW they are ready to get married AND exactly what type of person they want to be with?”
I unfortunately can’t help but believe that it’s because some people believe that there are two separate acceptable motives for being in a relationship – for fun until it ends, and for finding someone for marriage. That’s seems to be the only explanation why someone people would justify continuing a relationship past the point of determining it wasn’t destined for marriage.
I knew within a month of dating my wife, maybe less, that she was the one.
OTC,
I’m bringing the discussion here where it belongs.
Alias: “The parents ease of giving out son-in-law fringe benefits is what struck me the oddest since works against their daughter’s best interest. ”
OTC: “ Say what?? You sound so mercenary.”
———
>>Because I wouldn’t invite my daughter’s short-term boyfriend on a family trip?
Fine then, I’m mercenary.
______________________________________________________________________________________
OTC:
“ Both my parents and wife’s parents accepted us into our families long before we were engaged. There were no “fringe benefits” other than spending time with people you like. If her family refused to contact me because we weren’t married, I’d really think twice about marrying into a family that was so hostile.”
——–
>> As both I and my husband were prior to engagement, but both families knew that we were headed in that direction because they asked after they saw us becoming more involved with one another. Please point me to where I wrote anything about parents “not spending time with”, “refusing to contact” each other or being hostile to their kids’ boy/girl-friends.
FWIW, we did not sleep in the same room on the family trip.
Escoffier, market response is a tricky thing. A few examples of rejection doesn’t mean the guy isn’t attractive. It is said that players just have really thick skin, play the numbers game, and keep going on without worrying about previous rejections. Most guys are not like that, and they miscalibrate, thinking their value is lower than it is.
Cooper, I don’t see anything wrong with people going after what they want, as long as they don’t bother me. I have always been upfront with all potential suitors that I was looking for true love, and that I didn’t so much as kiss without a genuine emotional connection first. This has obvious downsides, but the upside is that I never had weird miscommunications on how seriously I viewed relationships.
I would have thought that getting to know your partner’s family is an indication that the relationship is more serious. For example, “meeting the parents” is often considered a big relationship milestone.
Hope, even today, to cite two things:
Supposedly they say married men get hit on a lot because of “pre-selection.” Various men report this is true. Never happens to me.
Women never look at me on the street, in the subway, or anywhere else. I would think my rather fecthing clothes would be interesting to them, but no.
@Hope
I would be very resistant to declare such serious intensions, to be honest. I’ve already learned the hard way how ineffective this can be. (I’ve killed attractions by being “too serious”) I’d say being aloof is much better strategy, in terms of maintaining an attraction. By strick pua-standards, I think making any mention of marriage, at all, would very much be a chump move. (especially at least at my age)
Cooper, it’s true, declaring such intentions likely won’t work for men. It also likely wouldn’t work for most women. My husband and I are both INFJ, so we’re weird people and talked about marriage early. Like, within a month early.
Escoffier, my husband’s stepdad is not objectively tall or good-looking, but his personality is a flirty one, so he has flirty banter with all kinds of women. I think a lot of this comes down to your personality, and I still think you’re selling yourself… shorter.
I am definitely not flirty, lol.
But leave aside talking. Don’t women like to look at handsome men the way we like to look at pretty girls? None of them are looking at me so that has to tell you something.
I think it’s a much smaller percentage of men who are considered attractive at first glance. So only some men will have women staring at them, whereas any woman who looks vaguely female will get checked out regularly. I think for most women, there needs to be a buildup of attraction/chemistry. This is why cold approaches probably aren’t the best method.
Susan, thanks for deleting my post from the other thread I’m sorry I made more work for you.
I’m reposting it here because it ties in with my response to OTC in #863
Hope:
“Escoffier and the girl both had their part to play. My initial conclusion was that both were a bit young, foolish, and not very self-aware, thus neither intentionally did a horrible wrong. I was not solely looking at it from the girl’s perspective. Escoffier’s intentions, an important thing in ethical discussions, were not malevolent.”
———-
>>Agreed.
To clarify, I didn’t state anywhere that Escoffier intended to p&d the girl but that the parents inadvertently gave the message that they didn’t mind because they never questioned the seriousness of the relationship, see?
I mean, exactly how many of her boyfriends did her parents invite to their cabin in Yosemite? All of them? (Cads & dads) The parents ease of giving out son-in-law fringe benefits is what struck me the oddest, working against their daughter’s best interest. Even though I’ve heard of these situations before, I still think “what in the world are they thinking?”
Hope summed it up nicely with:
“Nobody said anything about marriage; her parents and cultural indicators were not bringing up marriage. As he said, he didn’t even realize or think about his deeper feelings until after she brought up moving to be with him. The crux of the matter is mutual ignorance/muddling, helped along by the culture that does not try to bring young couples together toward lifelong commitment.”
@Susan, Escoffier
I have a story similar to Esc’s. It is in regards to my now wife.
She had to go home (16,000 km). I knew this over one year in advance. We talked LD back and forth for a while and about 8 months before I was sure of my course of action.
Two weeks before she left I knew the date I was going to do it. I continued to tell her how short the time would be.
Date came and passed. Couldn’t do it.
After she leaves (for what was a 1 year period) I decide on another date (I’ll beat you to it. I’m a huge fucking asshole.)
She left a photo album for me. I was just kinda looking at it one day during June. Uber stressed trying to solve some ridculously hard problem which really wasn’t that important.
Then
I came across the back page (it still wasn’t full).
There was a birthday card with a $50 gift certificate to Chapters (she knew me well) along with a CD (rofl, she needed something flat) which had a video containing her telling me how much she loved me, blowing kisses.. the whole bit. There was also a large assortment of X’s, O’s, some lipstick in the shape of lips etc.
So Susan. Am I a cad or a beta?
@Lokland
I’m not sure I’ve got the timeline right, but if I understand you correctly, you’re saying you had some doubts, and that you were won over when you realized how completely and madly she loved you.
I think that makes you a nice alpha. You did not give commitment easily, but when you were certain you went all in. No woman could ask for more.
@SW
That’s like what, 8% of men and 6% of women? Not exactly your target demographic. People who’ve racked up those numbers have already made their beds. Maybe they’re just uncomforable in them : |
The Boomers will bring great financial hardship to the rest of you. We have done a poor job of saving for retirement and racked up debt. You all are going to pay for our Medicaid funded nursing home care.
Heh heh heh… no, we’re really not. Nor will the imported third world semi-barbarians. Forced euthanasia is all that the federal government is going to be able to afford. Have a look at Z1 sometime. The Federal government has more than doubled its debt in less than four years. The private debt party ended in 2008 and it won’t be too much longer before the public one follows suit.
Forced euthanasia is all that the federal government is going to be able to afford.
I read this scenario before but I don’t think is very likely, if anything I think what will happen is that we will go back to the kids take care of their elderlies and do the best they can, although instead of spending their golden years traveling, dining and cruising, they will have to live with reduced means and/or contribute to the families by taking care of the grandkids or/and light household chores, much like it happens on third world communities. I’m pretty sure no one is going to volunteer their parents or grandparents for massive death at the hands of the government, family ties and all that, YMMV.
@ esc:
“Don’t women like to look at handsome men the way we like to look at pretty girls? None of them are looking at me so that has to tell you something.”
Per OKCupid, women think 80% of men are below average attractiveness.
Boomers also have all the voting power, so they’ll probably still find a way to make the rest of us pay.
At first, my brain wanted to balk at the stat that women think 80% of guys are below avg in looks, but after giving it some thought, I think it’s about right. There aren’t that many really good looking guys.
Boomers also have all the voting power, so they’ll probably still find a way to make the rest of us pay.
Emily,
Gen Y is actually roughly the same size as the Boomers so actually you guys can offset your parents’ voting power. Boomers still occupy most of the power structure but that should transition to Gen X over the next 10-15 years.
The private debt party ended in 2008 and it won’t be too much longer before the public one follows suit.
VD, don’t you think the endgame is close to total monetization of the debt. Off the top of my head, I think the Federal Reserve now buys something like 30-40% of U.S. Treasuries (which is why it doesn’t matter one bit whether or not China buys our debt). I could see the Fed buying something like 60-70% of U.S. debt with freshly printed dollars. Ultimately, it will end in super high inflation I think.
@Megaman
Yeah, I used the worst case scenario to drive home the point. Any way you look at it, it can’t be a good thing for people to marry their first love if they’ve spent 10 years either avoiding relationships or unable to secure them.
At first, my brain wanted to balk at the stat that women think 80% of guys are below avg in looks, but after giving it some thought, I think it’s about right. There aren’t that many really good looking guys.
Not sure why, but I always find this stat bizarrely fascinating…probably because of the obvious mathematical implications. If the vast majority of women ONLY find 20% of men *physically attractive* then a good chunk of women HAVE TO select for guys they are basically “meh” when it comes to looks. This has to be mathematically true. Of course, women have other attraction triggers so a guy can make up for perceived deficiencies in physical looks. In contrast, men prioritize physical appearance more, but the bar is much lower. As an example, I can tell you when I am the gym and see a 20-something woman as long as she isn’t overweight with a hideous face she meets the bar to be physically attractive.
Mike C,
That’s good to know!
Any way you look at it, it can’t be a good thing for people to marry their first love if they’ve spent 10 years either avoiding relationships or unable to secure them.
Susan,
I would tend to agree with this on one level. The flipside is you CANNOT miss what you haven’t had. A person who is poor and never has been rich probably has an easier time accepting their income level than someone who was rich and goes bust and has to live poor.
This is debatable, but I think women are more prone to compare their current SO to previous SOs in terms of what might be “missing”. The less serious relationships, the less there is to compare to. On the flipside, there is obviously a benefit to learning of what you cannot live with as you pointed out in the other post with the list of cannot haves.
BTW, I’d drive you crazy as I am a horrendous procrastinator
@VD
The end of entitlements is going to be quite a sh*t show.
As for the 80% statistic…
I used to be skeptical about it, but I’m starting to think that it’s true. The thing is though, women have so many other “triggers” that can cause them to later become attracted to guys who they might not have noticed at first. I think this is just one of those differences between the male and female brain.
When I think about it, I think there are quite a few guys who I find cute who didn’t “register” when I first met them.
Absolutely! Furthermore, I don’t think women agree much on what constitutes a male 5 vs. a 7 vs. a 10. So the face is one piece of the puzzle, and it may be important, but women will differ quite a bit.
I do think that Game can bump a guy up a lot – even 3-4 points. The thing is, it’s hard to separate out looks alone. A winning guy who’s not super handsome will do a lot better than a cute guy with a serial killer vibe.
The other thing about the 80% statistic of men “below average” is that female sexuality is highly subjective and also highly reactive. For example a normal-looking guy standing there, or walking down the street, is just not going to provoke any kind of *reaction* from most women. But if he’s strumming a guitar skillfully or telling a good joke or is being witty with her in conversation, suddenly she *reacts* to him and finds him hot. I had this reaction to my husband without even seeing what he looked like! He was skillful, smart and spoke intelligently. Most men can probably never relate to this. They get turned on by the physical / visual much more.
Also, do men really want women to be drooling over every other guy walking down the street? It is adaptive for women to NOT find most men attractive, as it cuts down on the jealousy aspect and the perceived risk of cheating.
@ this is jen
I’ve agreed with that stat since the first time I saw it. There really aren’t that many purely physically attractive men out there. Most of the men I see in my day to day life elicit a “meh” attitude from me. It’s very rare that I see a man who stops me in my tracks and makes me take a second look, purely based on his physical appearance.
It does explain why men who are lacking in the looks department, which is roughly 80%, really do need to learn and cultivate their game. They may not be able to attract a woman merely based on what they look like, but they can generate attraction through other avenues. Even physically attractive men benefit from learning game.
And the better looking the guy, probably the less likely he is to ever commit, or be faithful, all things being equal. Dilemmas, dilemmas.
People make trade-offs all the time in the looks department. But the longer they wait to settle down, the less leverage they have. Especially since women age less gracefully than men. I’d say physical attractiveness is at the bottom of the list of things keeping couples together.
The average age at marriage for college graduates is 28 and 30. If a 21 year old woman hopes her 21 yo bf is going to marry her, she needs to realize she’s in the long tail, far from the mean, and she needs to clarify explicitly.
During a recent family discussion, I suggested that my sons look at colleges were they were likely to meet suitable young women. Both of them–and my husband–laughed their heads off at me. For all the talk of men want virgins or men want women during their prettiest or most fertile years, the idea of actually settling down with one during those years is apparently ridiculous.
@J
“For all the talk of men want virgins or men want women during their prettiest or most fertile years, the idea of actually settling down with one during those years is apparently ridiculous.”
That’s because it isn’t “supposed” to be the guy who is 20-something…a common expectation is that a man has access to 20-something year old women when those men are 35+.
You can’t keep your heart safe if you want love.
Brilliant, Hope, just brilliant. Everybody hurts someone; everybody gets hurt–but you can’t win if you don’t play. People need to understand that.
Oh right, Royale. I had forgotten how attractive 35-40 yo men were to me when I was 20….not.
Per OKCupid, women think 80% of men are below average attractiveness.
Is that where that stat comes from? No wonder! If all a woman has to go on is a picture, a guy as to be Brad Pitt. But when personality becomes a factor, you all get signifcantly more attractive.
Per OKCupid, women think 80% of men are below average attractiveness.
Is that where that stat comes from? No wonder! If all a woman has to go on is a picture, a guy as to be Brad Pitt. But when personality becomes a factor, you all get significantly more attractive.
Oldest I’ve gone is 29 — hey, he’d still be in his 20s, technically! For some reason, 30 strikes me as…well, 30.
Gen Y is actually roughly the same size as the Boomers so actually you guys can offset your parents’ voting power. Boomers still occupy most of the power structure but that should transition to Gen X over the next 10-15 years.
That is if Gen Y would be as devoted to voting as boomers, not the case at all, IME.
Oh right, Royale. I had forgotten how attractive 35-40 yo men were to me when I was 20….not.
Any man 10 years older than me was automatically in the fatherzone, worst place than my friendzone, at least I do remember one guy that went from friendzone to “I didn’t noticed that you were this attractive” fatherzone = alcatraz.
« 1 … 4 5 6 7 »